Victor Hugo pages

There is a tendency to
downplay or dismiss Hugos status as a literary and
philosophical figure. Gides Hélas
(offered in response to the question, "Who is
France's greatest poet?") is the anecdote par
excellence of authors criticizing authors;
Nietzches dismissals of Hugo as a philosopher,
though less well known, are searing. That these two
remark on Hugo at all calls into question their premises:
if Hugo were so terrible, why would history have failed
to consign him to the category of writers we no longer
read? If Hugo had no philosophy and no one could even
suspect he did, why would Nietzche have commented? The
plainest example of snobisme comes from the other side of
the Atlantic in the form of the appraisal of Cliffs
Notes:

Victor Hugo has frequently
been criticized for vanity of character and shallowness
of mind. The vanity of which he was accused is largely
justified by the large scope of his talents, unparalleled
in literary history since Shakespeare and Goethe (8).

This seemingly glowing paragraph
concludes:

It is true that he was not a
profound thinker, but his devotion to the good, the
beautiful and the true, if uncritical, was
instinctive and sincere. The people of France whom he
loved have judged him better than the critics, and he
remains to this day one of Frances best-loved
authors (8).

Whether one believes Cliffs Notes to
be a road map to understanding literature or a tool for
cheating, they often provide a sense of what scholars
feel that students should take from their reading. It is
interesting, then, to note that throughout this guide for
the American reader we encounter glowing praise followed
by cautious caveats. How striking to note that critics
are dismissive but the people like him! Need any
perceptive undergraduate give more than a moments
thought in deciding what tone he ought take in class?

We would suggest that Hugos
poor reception among critics stems at least in part from
the fact that people other than critics can
appreciate him. The elegance and sophistication that
require decoding and explication seem to be lacking. Yet
the work endures. Does this mean the people are
simpletons and Hugo their bard? Rather, Hugo is perhaps
the most sophisticated of authors, finding the language
to move readers with simple yet important truths most
authors lack the confidence to assert, lest they be
thought unsophisticated. This intellectual chicanery
comes through loud and clear in Emersons assertion,
To be great is to be misunderstood. The
sentiment is evident in much of the Hugo bashing in which
his writing and ideas are not attacked, not questioned,
but simply dismissed as beneath probing. Yet Hugo still
moves. One goes to class to read Gide and does so on the
threat of poor marks in literature; one spends ones
own money to see Hugo brought to life, be it poorly, as
in Disneys Hunchback of Notre Dame,
moderately well, as in the musical, Les Misérables,
or cleverly in such as Rigoletto: an offering for
every social class.